Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 July 3

Becoming Dutch Nationa;
If I go and live in the Netherlands (from the UK), to what office do I walk to get information/fill papers to become a Dutch National? --Username132 (talk)  01:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * For a start, read the article Dutch nationality law to see if you are, or can become, eligible for Dutch citizenship. You should also contact or visit the Royal Netherlands Embassy in London before you leave the United Kingdom. If you are in the Netherlands, information and applications for residency can be obtained from the Ministry of Justice (Ministerie van Justitie) and the Immigration and Naturalisation Department (Immigratie en Naturalisatie Dienst). --Canley 02:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As a Dutchman let me welcome you. And warn you. don't let Verdonk notice you or she'll kick you out. Though your chances should be better if you're white and well off and not from some weird country she doesn't know about from a western country. Elections in November. Hopefully things will improve then. DirkvdM 17:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, what a witch! And she's supposed to be liberal? Don't I have the right, as a member of a EU member state, to go and live wherever I want in the EU provided I'm not criminal (and I'm not) --Username132 (talk), UK or Netherlands 11:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oops, I forgot you're from the EU. Well, then you don't need to become a Dutch citizen to live here, I suppose, although I can imagine it would help in some respects. Then again, being a foreigner can make it easier to find a place to live. Some rental houses are exclusively for expats. But the reason for that is that they have fewer rights and can get kicked out more easily (out of the house, that is). So you decide if that's a good thing. About Verdonk being a liberal, in the Nethrelands that term is mostly used for economic liberalism, ie the free market. If you're a non-rightwing liberal you have to specify that (usually called 'social liberal'). DirkvdM 15:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Sentence re-writing
do not think these sentences sound good, can someone offer help and suggestions in writing? Do I need to work on word order?

After Artaxerxes I (Longimanus), was Xerxes II who ruled in 424.

In 50 B.C., the Senate, led by Pompey, ordered Caesar to return to Rome from Gaul, where he was fighting in the Gallic Wars, and disband his army because his term as Proconsul had finished.

While Caesar was in Egypt fighting the Ptolemaic forces, Antipater of Idumea, with the High Priest, Hyrcanus II’s blessing, had led 3000 Jewish troops to Egypt to help Julius Caesar.


 * How about:


 * "Xerxes II succeeded Artaxerxes I (Longimanus) in 424."
 * "In 50 B.C. the Senate, led by Pompey, ordered Caesar to return to Rome from Gaul, where he was fighting in the Gallic Wars, and disband his army because his term as proconsul had ended." (It's rational, if a bit complex. Maybe it could be split?)
 * "While Caesar was in Egypt fighting the Ptolemaic forces, Antipater of Idumea, with the blessing of the High Priest Hyrcanus II, had led 3000 Jewish troops to Egypt to help him." (I'm not sure whether this is considerably better. History articles tend to read like... well, history articles.) SirWoland 06:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You don't need our opinion at all. You are completly free to improve the articles as you wish. Usually, if it is a genuine improvement noone will oppose it, if it is not, someone will revert it. Remember always: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. And: Be bold! Flamarande 08:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Indigenous of Britain
"In York and Norfolk, here the Germanic male sex chromosome occurs in about 60% of men, with indigenous Y chromosomes comprising about 40%" (<--from English people)

By "indigenous," does that refer to the Celts? -Rainsey 02:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It would. There were people living on the island before the Celts arrived, but I don't think we know much about them.  The neolithic peoples were probably not the Celts, so people treat the Celts as the most "indigenous" that they know of, I suppose.  The word should, however, probably be changed, as it implies something that can't really be substantiated.  Geogre 03:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If Celts are not Germans and talking about indy genes refers to anything unknown, a statement would be "with Celts and other unknown, called indigenous, Y ..." --DLL 17:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, whether the Celts are Germanic or not is yet another question. It kind of depends on what you mean by "Germanic" and how strenuously you want to enforce it and, most particularly, when you want to define it.  So far as I can tell, most reference works will use "Germanic" to refer to the peoples living in Germania at the time of the first written historical record of them (approximately 150-200 BC).  Those people displaced the Celts as they rushed into "Germany," and the Celts moved to the west.  Whether the Celts had come from Germania in any more lasting sense is something that I, at least, do not know, and I have not heard any good, agreed upon, explanation of who had been in the British Isles prior to their arrival, although the Stone Henge culture certainly was there.  Had those people, whoever they were, also come from Germania?  Had they come from the Urals?  Had they come from Spain?  Had they just spontaneously generated there?  There aren't literate people talking about them at the time, whoever they were, and their material culture is difficult to track.  Geogre 17:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Why couldn't "indigenous" refer to the Iberians? User:Zoe|(talk) 02:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, if we know that they're the megalith builders of Britain. I didn't know we knew that.  Again, I don't know archeology very well, but I would have assumed that the article meant the Celts.  It needs a clarification in any case, because people like me would be confused and think "Celt."  (Are there many remains other than the megaliths in the British Isles that can link these people definitively with the Iberians?  E.g. the red ochre tombs were, I thought, rather unique, and the funeral barrows were unusual.)  Geogre 03:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Where are the different places that "they" believe the people came from who were before the Celts? Personally I think it was the Celts that were there when Stone Henge was made-- we hear nothing of people there before Germanic (Nordic, really, since "Germans" came from Norway/Sweden) tribes invaded. I know I may be wrong-- are there any proofs that point to there being another people in Britain before the Celts? What "proof," or evidence rather, points to the Celts being their (and essentially staying there)?

I know we all know that "Germans" as they are now known today came from Norway/Sweden/Denmark, but--wait, the Celts could be Germanic? ^_^ Interesting. --Rainsey 22:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Pantheism,Creation, and Evolution
I have three questions to ask you about pantheism,creation, and evolution:

1.Before the Theory of Evolution was invented, how did most pantheists believe the universe, including the earth,life, and people, came into existence?

2.What do pantheists usually think about the Theory of Evolution and all the evidence for evolution?Are they for it or against it?If they think nature is God, then what do they think about the fact that it is constantly changing and evolving?

3.What do pantheists usually think about creation and Intelligent Design?What do they think about the 'evidences' and arguments for them such as irreducible complexity,specified complexity,fine-tuned universe,the teleological argument, and the cosmological argument?Are those arguments effective to them?

220.245.178.141 05:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Pantheism is perfectly compatible with evolution. Divinity is reflected in everything - i.e., what we usually call "nature". As such, the laws of nature - whether referred to as such, known only as well-supported theories, or still undiscovered by humans - govern our existence in exactly the same way as Christians presumably believe God does. Those laws include the "theory of evolution". Pantheism and intelligent design can also co-exist perfectly well, since the divinity of nature is the thing which is responsible ultimately for evolution. As such, the diversity of animal life is caused by an evolution designed to achieve such a diversity. As to whether that evolution itself is divine, no, it is the simplest and most well-suited method for and solution to the creation of such diversity. Arguments of irreducible complexit], specified complexity, fine-tuned universe, teleology, and cosmology are all null-cases that have no bearing on evolution (indeed they don't have any bearing on it from a scientific or Christian viewpoint either, since none of them hold any water). Grutness...wha?  08:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

What self repspecting terrorist would send money through banks controlled by the evil Zionist conspiracy?
This is NOT a political discussion. Dont radical muslims think that all the world's banks are controlled by the evil Jews? Why would they send money through them? If I was a terrorist, it seems pretty straightforward to me. Don't send money through the Jews who are trying to destroy you and sending all the banking records to Evil America. Frankly, all this bitching on both sides doesn't make sense to me. You'd have to be stupid a moron to send your money this way, and if you're a moron you're probably not much of a threat. --mboverload @ 05:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Who said they were? First of all, right after 9/11 people were talking about the hawala banking system.  Second, lightning doesn't strike the same place twice.  Hence, I don't really think another 9/11 type of attack could happen in the United States.--71.107.200.35 05:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A newspaper, New York Times, recently outed the program that spies on millions of bank transfers of people from every country on earth. The republicans want to file treason charges against the people who exposed the information, and the journalists who wrote about it. --mboverload @  05:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I asked a Socratic question. This program is something that people knew about before the NY Times publication.  Today, Charles Schumer said on Meet the Press that the SWIFT program was hinted at in the 9/11 Commission Report; plus he and others senators knew about it all along.71.107.200.35 05:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I just assumed the program was in place after I discovered that all my web traffic goes through one of the NSA rooms (sorry, can't find the guide they have/had on wired.com). --mboverload @ 06:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Are we getting Al Quaieda and the Nazis confused again? the nazis hate jews, and think there taking over the world, the muslims just think they're nicking their land, and should be kicked off, and the america is helping them, so should also get a good kicking. Philc TECI 13:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll just abstain from answering this moronic question. Loomis 21:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please do, but next time, dont pot a pathetic, inflammatory response, because you did answer it, and now you look like the moron. But that fact is you are mixing sterotypes of two very different, yet extremist cultures. THe foundation of this question is weak. Philc  TECI 20:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did consider that the question was tongue-in-cheek, but it would have helped had the questioner used a few simple "quotations marks" when mentioning a "Self-Respecting Terrorist" or "Evil Zionist Conspiracy" to better display that fact. Yet the question was phrased in far too ambiguous a fashion. But please, Phil, don't try to "educate" me about the "sterotypes of two very different, yet extremist cultures". First, I don't really get why you use the term "stereotype". A "stereotype" is an unfounded generalization about an entire group. For example, to say that it would be a "stereotype" to assume that a nazi or a radical muslim was an anti-semite, would be to give far too much credit to these groups. ALL nazis and ALL radical muslims are, BY DEFINITION, anti-semitic. The use of the term "stereotype" actually gives these groups undue respect. Were you better informed about the anti-semitic propaganda spouted in the middle-east, you'd be aware that the the entire idea of an "Evil Zionist Conspiracy" is more than simply a neo-nazi invention, but rather is ALIVE AND WELL in much of the Arab world.


 * My apologies to the original questioner for being so harsh as to call his/her question "moronic", yet I still believe it was very badly phrased, if it was indeed meant to be taken tongue-in-cheek in the first place. As for you, Phil, I have no apology, only a request. Please better educate yourself concerning anti-semitism in the Arab world before trying to "educate" ME on the subject. Loomis 23:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Nazis are not by definition anti-semitic. Nazis are by definition supporters of the ideology of the National Socialist German Workers Party. Which gained support of many grounds other than anti-semitism, including, hard stance on communism, improving structure of germany, and the villification of the Dolchstoßlegende, hence their name (in german its pretty mean). You stated that stereotypes are unfounded, this is not true, its not a coincidence that stereotypical Italians are pizza-pie-a chefs, and like pasta, and have an italian accent, these are all things from italy! Basically there is a foundation, however it is true to say it is an unfair generalization.


 * Saying all radical muslims are anti-semitic, now thats just rude. That is a generalization. They can go extreme on different things you know, for example the taliban, beat women, hung people, tortured people, banned western culturisms, banned music, but I'm not aware that they had a particular issue with jews. Are you saying they're not extremist.


 * But anyway my point wasn't that no extremist muslims are anti-semitic, my point was it was different anti-semitism, while the Nazis saw them as money laundering, stealing, power hungry, world domination plotters, the muslim dislike of jews is far more religion based and/or, anger at the acquisition of muslim lands to make isreal.


 * And now after typing all this, I realised you were reffering to the original question, and not my reply, when you posted!! I apologize for any inconvenience, and/or offence, just as you did. I dont want to be troublesome, though I often am! ;-) -- Philc TECI 01:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

English in the Netherlands.
How many people speak English in the Netherlands, and how well? Would I be able to get by and not appear idiotic for not speaking Dutch or German? Are there any web-pages intended for English-speakers heading to the Netherlands?
 * Most people in the Netherlands speak English reasonably well, so there should be no problem; I know several foreigners who have lived here for years without really learning Dutch. But it would be nice if you'd try to master at least a few short Dutch phrases, like "Spreekt u Engels?" ("Do you speak English?"), because if you just expect everyone to address you in your own language that might make a somewhat arrogant impression. David Sneek 06:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I am almost positive that English is the required second language. I know they require all students to be bilingual from a very young age, but I'm not sure what languages they have to choose from. You'd be surprised about the number of countries where English as a second language is just the standard. --mboverload @  06:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Not really, English is the current language of choice for publishing scientific papers, and for business in many parts of the world. Having English language requirements in most countries isn't too farfetched.  --ColourBurst 06:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * English, German and French are the most common foreign languages Dutch students can choose. Less common languages, I think includes Spanish and Turkish. - Mgm|(talk) 08:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I am Flemish, so I live in the Dutch speaking part of Belgium bordering the Netherlands, but I do a couple a things about that country. Yes, they speak English very well, and the Dutch people I know were taught English as a second language. I think they can choose for a third language between French and German. So I don't think that lack of German knowledge is of that relevance, it is not their second language. In Belgium, because we have such a nice bilingual country, we are taught French (not English!) as a second language, and English is the third, but in practice (because of the overwhelming amount of English television shows, movies and internet sites) my English has become much much better. So in short : you will do fine. But that was a very hint by mboverload to learn a few dutch sentences. Or at least asking people whether or not they speak English, they mostly will but yes, it shows that you don't simply expect them. And don't speak incredibly fast, when listening to Americans or British that is usually my biggest problem.


 * It would be almost impossible to learn Dutch in the Netherlands. If you're a native English speaker, as soon as you open your mouth, people will hear that and start speaking English to you. Only if you come very well prepared, so much that there is little difference between speaking the two languages, might you convince some to speak Dutch with you. By the way, the main reason the Dutch speak English so well is that movies on tv are subtitled. Since most films are in English, we're regularly exposed to English from early childhood. DirkvdM 18:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Time cause of motion?
Hi everyone,

Here is my question: can time be considered as the cause of motion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.125.120.193 (talk • contribs)


 * Yes. I'll leave it to the philosophers and scientists to elaborate, but see cause.--Shantavira 08:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Philosophers have said before that it's the other way around: because things move, we have to have before/after (time). Geogre 13:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * According to general relativity, curvature of spacetime is a cause of acceleration. Conscious 13:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Without time, nothing could move. On the other hand, if nothing moved, we could have no sense or measurment of time. On the other hand, as above, relativity does say that time and space (as one) are the basic constituants of the universe itself. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 03:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The old joke about the difficulty of axiomatic questions is, "Time really does not matter, and as for matter, who has the time?" Geogre 13:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yellow River Concerto.
I seem to remember back in the 1960s that the local Classical Music Stations would play some music where the announcements would name the piece as the "Yellow River Concerto, written by a collective (of some group or other, can't remember). The main thrust of the announcement seemed to be that the work was a collective, and not the work of one composer.  No name was mentioned.

Thinking about this recently, I checked "Yellow River Concerto" on Wikipedia, and Lo! There it was, complete with the name of the arranger, as well as the name of the composer of the original work. No hint that it was composed as a collaboration.

From my memory, this was the only work I ever heard that specifically did NOT have any names attached (other than the famous A Nonymus), and stressed the fact that it was a collective work.

Not having heard it recently, I wondered if it were originally "peddled" as a collective work, and maybe recently the name was attached, or if my memory about this is faulty. Anyone have any ideas? Thanks for any help. Bunthorne 07:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ehm, Yellow River, so you're talking about China, right? DirkvdM 18:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. The announcements made it clear that it was a composition from a communist Chinese collective. Bunthorne 04:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clearing that up. You should have made that a little clearer, though, since there are lots of people from the US who talk on the Internet (an international medium) about stuff from the US without making that clear, which can be rahter confusing. :) DirkvdM 04:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

UK Conservative Party
Is the Conservative Party considered a Christian Democratic party? I realize that it has its own history distinct from continental politics, but has it more or less evolved towards a Christian Democratic ideology? Bhumiya (said/done) 08:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There's no mention of Britain in this section. Personally I don't recognise much of British Conservative policies in the article's definition of what constitutes Christian democracy. --Richardrj 12:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * In the European parliament the British conservatives form a party group with continental Christian Democrats (See), but David Cameron has announced that this alliance will end. David Sneek 13:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The anti-European wing of the Conservative Party, which is now the majority, hate being allied with the Christian Democrats, who they see as being corporatist. Jameswilson 22:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC) No, conservatives were not formed based on the theory of christian democracy. Conservatives tend to be religious than christian democrates. That being said, Conservative party is the basic center right party as is christian democrate party.

Berengar
Is Berengar a Frankish, Gothic or Burgundian name? Is it any one of these three? Lord Loxley 09:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Possibly Frankish? Although the use of it by the Counts of Barcelona would make it Catalan.  User:Zoe|(talk) 02:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I see it mostly in use for the Northwest Mediterranean during those times. I do in fact believe it to be Frankish, simply because it was common during the Carolingian Renaissance. Lord Loxley 07:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Zoroastrian attitude to alcohol
Do most modern Zoroastrians imbibe? I was unable to find any mention of this on our Zoroastrianism article. Thanks! Bhumiya (said/done) 10:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Poor Bhumiya, nobody seems to care to respond to your question! (NOT to be taken sarcastically! I mean it!). Unfortunately I'm extremely unfamiliar with Zoroastrianism, so I too can't offer much of an answer. I'm only writing because I'm wondering if the way you phrased your question actually reflects your actual inquiry. I'm assuming that you're question is regarding the Zoroastrian religious position regarding the consumption of alcohol, and/or whether modern Zoroastrians in fact follow any possible prohibition. Yet, read literally, your question seems to be a simple inquiry as to whether Zoroastrians, in practice, tend to drink. There are many people who don't drink for purely non-religious reasons. For example, alcohol is permitted in Christianity, yet many temperance movements began in predominantly Christian societies. Similarly, the consumption of alcohol is perfectly acceptable in Judaism, yet Jews are not known for being heavy drinkers. By contrast, alcohol is forbidden in Islam, but many non-religious Muslims drink all the same (not to say that non-religious Muslims are known to be heavy drinkers, simply that they don't strictly adhere to all of the rules of Islam, just as many Jews simply can't resist the allure of bacon!)


 * So is your question about the Zoroastrian religious position on the consumption of alcohol? Is it about the attitudes of modern Zoroastrians concerning alcohol (regardless of the position of their faith)? Or should it be taken literally, namely: Regardless of their religious precepts, do modern Zoroastrians tend to be drinkers? Hope this sparks some interesting debate! Loomis 21:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I was only wondering if they tend to drink, not whether they're supposed to drink. Bhumiya (said/done) 06:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Theories on Aryan race?
Could it be that the Roma people and Aryans are supposed to derive from the same source and that this is the issue with those Indo-Aryanists? Who would have thought that scientific racism would promote the scoundrels of their society as eugenically sound, after all the Gypsies had been through. Who would have thought that Gypsies were a general European people, when always on the outskirts of European acceptance? Maybe the racists couldn't account for hidden Romas in their own blood; couldn't take a chance. All I know is that this is theoretical and nothing solid; wishful thinking. In all the history of the world, when has India been natively associated with Europe? Indo-Europeanism is a racist concoction to support the imperialism for tea and textiles, with no basis before the idea was published--only Alexander the Great and Greco-Buddhism (blown out of proportion, both of them) seem to have had truthful associations with India. When has Hinduism been European?--since the British Empire. In the words of J.R.R. Tolkien:


 * I regret that I am not clear as to what you intend by 'arisch'. I am not of Aryan extraction: that is Indo-Iranian; as far as I am aware none of my ancestors spoke Hindustani, Persian, Gypsy, or any related dialects. ... But if I am to understand that you are enquiring whether I am of Jewish origin, I can only reply that I regret that I appear to have no ancestors of that gifted people.... I have been accustomed, nonetheless, to regard my German name with pride, and continued to do so throughout the period of the late regrettable war, in which I served in the English army. I cannot, however, forbear to comment that if impertinent and irrelevant inquiries of this sort are to become the rule in matters of literature, then the time is not far distant when a German name will no longer be a source of pride.
 * One of two draft letters (25 July 1938) written for Stanley Unwin to select as a response to his German publishers inquiry about his ancestry.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/J._R._R._Tolkien

I have to agree with consensus about Basques being the focal point of European genetic relations. I do not like the Aryanist idea that the source of Europeans is India; that seems like exaggerating the separate roles of Alexandrian and European colonial conquests. It also forgets that Gypsies aren't Europe's favourite ethnic group in the slightest. Tolkien, like myself, find Mediterranean peoples to have most association with Europe--the Indian Ocean is like light-years away (except Tigris-Euphrates and Persian Gulf) in things to do with Europe. Who here would dispute ancient ancestors in the Mediterranean, but support the Indus and Ganges Rivers instead? As Tolkien put it, he regrets to not know of any Jewish blood in him. European culture has always been Mediterranean by choice, although that hasn't stopped Asiatic hordes from destroying Europe (the East of it, especially). Whatever the grounds of "Indo-European" there are, the Indian subcontinent is not European--unlike the Basques, whom we all can trace significant genetic relations with. Europeans are Atlantic...

BTW...I see no specific dispute with Persian connections to Europe, however exotic they have been. Europe like the Middle East and Africa (Japheth, Shem and Ham like Christ, Moses and Muhammad), have a monotheistic root in Abrahamic religion. Those neo-Nazis who claim that Hinduism and Germanic paganism have more in common than Germanic paganism and Roman paganism (how does a European find Romans to be inferior Europeans [reverse prejudice about barbarians?], but then go bananas about India?), must be off their rockers. What's wrong with Jews, but everything right about Roma? Get real, people!

Lord Loxley 12:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear user Lord Loxley; after reading your furious ravings in a most careful fashion I have to ask you if there is any real question you want to make here. You also seem to have mixed up several issues which are not really connected with each other. In a most honest fashion I have to tell you that I don't know much about the issue: "Indo-Aryan culture/race". However here and there (no, I don't have any hard facts), I read that during classical antiquity many writers remarked that several words were quite similar between various languages. Like Pater (latin) and Vater (German). According to linguistists this has been studied and largely confirmed. I also know of a theory that Europe was basicly isolated from Africa and Asia because of the Urals and the mountains in Turkey during an Ice Age . It has been argued that this isolation has lead to the development of the Neanderthals, which seem to have only appeared in Europe, and were particularly adapted to a colder climate. After the Ice Age had passed (more or less 30'000 years ago), the modern Cro Magnon supposedly slowly migrated into Europe and the Neanderthal vanished under misterious circunstances. The Cro-Magnon would according to this theory come from a yet unindetified homeland and basicly share the ancestors of the modern Hindu culture/race.


 * First, the Roma people (aka Gypsies) came much more recently from India and entered into Europe during the early Middle Ages (or late antiquity I am not sure). During the WWII they were classified as Untermenschen by the Nazi regime and put along the Jews and Homosexuals (something which only appears sparingly in modern Hollywood movies) into concentration camps. The Nazi racial theories were not logical and in fact didn't agree with themselves. To make them really simple: tall, blond, blue eyes = superior race. But if you belonged for example to a enemy country/ppl then you were considered racially inferior regardless of that. Like the Poles and the Russians, but unlike the Norwegians. The Nazis somehow could mix race with country/ppl in a fashion which defies any sense of logic.
 * To quote Tolkien, which was a linguistic, in a racial question, is...quite unwise of you. With all due respect to him, he didn't have the resources and knowledge available to modern geneticists.
 * And by the way, at the beginning of WWII black Americans and Japanese were widely disregarded as fighter pilots because the first was supposed to be "unable to see in the dark" and the second was supposed to have "a bad range perception because his eyes". All these views were regarded as scienctificly proven by several western medical universities. "We" were living amidsts racial segregation and these views were regarded quite natural and as "proven by science". But Pearl Harbor and the black american fighter squadron (whose name eludes me) has proven that these views were simply wrong (so much for the worth of western academia).


 * The Basques are genetically and linguistically one of the strangest ppl in Europe. Their language is unrelated to all others and they seem to be geneticaly distinct. Now the real question is: are they descended from a earlier migration (race)? Or might they be a bit inbreed?
 * The worth of genetic markers seems to be answer to everything these days, something which I take with a bit of salt. I do not dispute that vast majority of tests are useful and I accept their validity. But it seems to me that certain scientist are exagerating everything and grasping at straws. For example a statement like: the majority of Europeans descend of 9 female ancestors seems (to me at last) a bit dubious.
 * Your point about religion is completly wrong. The original religions in Europe were not Abrahamic, they seem to have been of polytheist tradition. The Jewish and the Christian religions were slowly adopted by Europe dusing the Roman Empire and certainly not before. Central, Eastern, and Northern Europe were even converted during the Middle Ages. Flamarande 14:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

But how would social scientists still promote this error that the Indus and Ganges are more relevant to Europe than the Tigris and Euphrates? In fact, this is the mainstay of anti-Semitic secularists. I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure of the Meditteranean mixture which defines much of the Caucasian peoples. The same cannot be verifiably said for relations with Asia, since we only know from antiquity that the Arabians and North Africans have been prehistorically related to Europeans. What aspects of the Dharmic religions are part of the West and what real links would they have had with European paganism, as opposed to European paganism dealing with Babylonian gods? Just think of the agricultural connections between Europe and the Arabian Peninsula; nothing of this scale is comparable when discussing Europe-Subcontinent issues. In fact, it is only recent intellectualism that would have us associate and classify the way the Nazis did. This socialogical perception was all formed in the 19th century and expressed most perceptively at the peak of Imperialism in Asia and rise of Darwinism. Woe betide the elder status of Europeans and our traditional ties with Jewish economists and Moslem theocracies; we must also cast aside Christianity in favour of making false links with the Hindus and Buddhists. What are we coming to? Your presentation appears to march right in step with the secularists, who support some sort of nativist approach towards religion and the conversion of ancient pagans to the precepts of Jesus Christ. I'm sorry, but I am Christian and praise the Carolingians for what they did. I have no special interest in returning to pre-Christian barbarisms. Whatever the sentiments may have been when Nero was in power have shifted to Constantine...so let it be. When did ancient pagans in Europe (like the Hellenic Greeks) relate with the Indian subcontinent, as opposed to the Levant? The Romans didn't call it Mare Nostrum for nothing! Lord Loxley 14:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh brother. I know that Mesopotamia, between the Tigris and the Euphrates is far more relevant for the history of Europe (western civilization), than the Indus and the Ganges and I believe that the vast majority of modern scienctists defend that view. But there seem to have been also some relations with the Far East, read for for example the Swastika. As for your religious questions I must point out that the ancient druids (of which we know far too little) appear to have believed in reincarnation.


 * The Swastika is like grasping at straws; a subtle, yet new interest in academia since the aforementioned imperialist excursions in India, whether by Alexander or the Colonists. Lord Loxley 08:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The Arabian peninsula has no great tradition of agriculture; is way too hot. They had/have rather a nomadic culture based upon the herds of sheep, etc. I think you meant the land between the Tigris and the Euphrates. I quite agree with you there, however the Celts and the Germanic tribes are clearly a distinct culture which appears to have had only sporadic contact with Ancient Egypt.


 * Yes, but relations between Europeans and Levantine or African nations is too great to be supplanted by Asiatic lobbies, which have only influenced Europe so long as they have conquered the lands between the Black and Baltic seas. Lord Loxley 08:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Nobody is diputing that Christianity is THE most important cultural basis of Western civilization. I (and I think most of the Westerners) rather like Christianity. But "like" does not mean "blindly believe", and denying the fact that it was originaly "adopted" (Europe was converted) is not the right way to go. And hardline preachers of every religion scare me.


 * I'm just offended by those among us who hate the three religions of Abraham, but would rather concoct some elaborate and inventive association with the Orient--especially "Northeast Asians" and supplant our native institutions with pseudoscience. Lord Loxley 08:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You seem to believe that Christianity is under heavy attack from all sides. I rather think that many self-rightous Christians are doing a splendid job in antagonizing rational ppl everywhere with all their whyinning and their radical preaching. Flamarande 18:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not just Christianity (also Judaism and Islam), but we Christians have endured persecution before and will have to adjust to it again. Lord Loxley 08:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Lord Loxley, your question seems to be requesting evidence of correlations between the roman religions and indian religions such as hinduism. In that case, I'd suggest looking at the article on Proto-Indo-European religion. It describes the aspects of a theorized ancient religion put together by archeologists, linguists, and cultural anthropologists. This religion is where all indo-european religions came from, including the celtic, roman, and greek pagan religions as well as hinduism, jainism, and zoroastrianism. If that isn't your question, please clarify what it is....I may be able to answer it.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The simple fact is, I believe that those "facts" are actually theories written and motivated by globalists and secularists whom originally stood for scientific racism, colonial Darwinism and the negation of Christian relations with the Islamic and Jewish (Hamito-Semitic, "Afro-Asiatic") worlds except in matters of superiority. Those who believe they are Arya, find the "Semiticization" of Europe to have been done by the "Jew known as Jesus Christ" (who was Adonis?).  I am not apprehencive of Middle Eastern genetic or otherwise influence in my blood or whatnot; I do not have wishful thinking about the (foreign) caste system as it applies to me in relations to others.  I do not embrace the heartland of those who violated the heart and soul, the women and children of Europe throughout the ages.  I do not salute their memory, but look with admiration to those brave heroes who had the "stiff upper lip" and defended the West from destruction.  Let the civilised and not the barbaric prevail.  Who could prove that Mediterranean culture is not the core of Europe, as it is for the Middle East and some parts of Africa?  Should I throw away my respect for Hannibal of Carthage and Saladin, in exchange for obscure Indians?  Should I negate the History of the alphabet in the Hamito-Semitic world, in exchange for the Vedas? I don't think so.  What Wikipedia says about the origins of European culture are wrong or at least, in conflictive statements.  Lord Loxley 08:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Pilgrimage
DOes Sikhs have their own pilgrimage?


 * Yes, in the article on Sikhism several sacred places and shrines are mentioned. David Sneek 19:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Macbeth
What is the origin of the 3 weird sisters in Macbeth?


 * The Weird Sisters? David Sneek 19:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * (Their three weird mamas and weirder daddies?) Geogre 03:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Their orgigin is never made claim. Even regarding the nature,or even existance of their powers can be questions. Off hand I would say they are probally pagans of saxon origin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.117.12 (talk • contribs)
 * Dude - if they're really sisters, then they probably just had one wierd mama and one wierd daddy. Unless they're half sisters or something.
 * Doesn't "weird" mean "doom" in Scots? --Kjoonlee 06:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

New Jersey Gross Income Tax
What year was the New Jersey Gross Income Tax first collected?--
 * I don't know -- what year was the New Jersey Gross Income Tax first collected? 82.131.187.36 08:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC).

False Claims Act
If a former US government employee lies about a subject in which he or she has a personal interest, meaning that he or she may be liable if the negation of their lie becomes known to people who may have been injured by his or her neglegence, and a third party witnesses the lie, then what is the form of the Federal False Claims Act pleading which must be filed to initiate the lawsuit? 71.135.240.182 22:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, I have already looked at Pleading, Complaint, Cause of action, Remedy, Injunction, Petition, and Service of process. What I would like to see is an example of a pleading where someone else did this in the past, and succeeded.

I would also like to see the example of a Remedy request from somone who has very little interest in a matter, other than as a witness. For example, how is the right way to claim, "If I report and stop this crime, then my life will be better because crime is deterred, and therefore I have standing to file this claim." How does that get put in legal pleadings? 71.135.240.182 23:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * By the loss? "If I do not report this crime, then my life would get worse; therefore I have standing?" -- probably important to show "would get worse" as strictly opposed to "might get worse". AnAccount2 23:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Is the neglegence a lasting harm? If so, explain how; if not, you may not have standing since you said "former" employer. See if your public library as an "Annotated US Code" and look up the false claims act in there. You can find supreme court and appeals court decisions, which usually include the attorney names. Then you can ask an attorney whether you have standing; if you can convince the attorney that you have enough standing to make the case worth the attorney's time, then you only need to swear to an affadavit, and assist the attorney in the preparation of a case. AnAccount2 00:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Flutes
How long is a flute exactly?
 * There are many different kinds of Flute. Is it a particular type you have in mind? Road Wizard 23:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

A normal concert flute.

Perhaps they vary. AnAccount2 00:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The length determines the pitch it sounds when all the holes are closed. The lowest note of the Western concert flute is middle C, so it's about 67 cm long. —Keenan Pepper 01:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You can calculate that by dividing the speed of sound in air (about 340 m/s, depending on temperature) by the pitch of middle C (262 Hz), and dividing by two because the flute is closed at one end (so the wave goes to the end and back again, roughly speaking). Haha, you thought this was a humanities question. =P —Keenan Pepper 01:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.


 * Sorry to nitpick, but the reason you divide by two is not because a flute is a closed pipe, but actually because it's an open one. It's open at both ends because the mouth hole is large enough and not completely covered when blown across. The reason you divide by two is that the period of 262Hz includes both the crest and trough of the standing wave. This means there's three nodes and two anti-nodes for the wave of this pitch. The flute, at full length will vibrate half of this wave (two nodes and an anti-node) while making the pitch for the entire wave. Thus you divide by two. This is significant because if it were a clarinet you would need to divide by four. The property you mentioned is why a claranet is about as long as a flute but makes a much lower lowest note. In the case of the oboe in the next question you roughly divide by two because and oboe has a conical shape which allows the sound to spread out and become influenced to a greater degree by the atmospheric pressure. So for the flute and other cylindrical instruments you can imagine a sinusoidal waves, but for conical instruments the wave basically peters out at the end of it. So an oboe or saxophone that is roughly as long as a flute will have the same lowest pitch (but for different reasons), but a claranet of the same lenght will have a lowest pitch an octave lower than the lowest pitch of the other instruments. -LambaJan 04:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Right you are. —Keenan Pepper 21:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)